Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The title sort of says it all. I wrote out an article on the topic on Capture and Control which you can read here:
http://www.captureandcontrol.com/2013/07/40k-tournament-organizers-if-you-are.html

Let me preface this. This is a discussion about Tournament Formats not about whether or not 40k is a game designed to be played competitively. Whether you believe 40k is designed with competitive tournaments in mind or not is not the issue at hand here. Regardless of your beliefs the game is played that way by a large number of people and this thread is for the discussion of making those events more competitive by excluding Random Game Length from tournament mission design. Thanks!

If you don't want to click here is a basic summary. Random Game Length takes out a lot of the strategy in 40k and instead make the game hinge upon the roll of a single die. Obviously not every game fits that description but in a tournament where you are competing to be the top player it really doesn't make sense to have the game decided, in some cases, by the roll of a single die. There are enough random game elements in 40k already and they work well, but this one just seems to sour the game on so many occasions. If we as a tournament community really are free to do as we please then why not throw Random Game Length out? Obviously I make a stronger case in the linked article but that is basic premise of my post.

Having played in tournaments for the better part of 15 years, including Adepticon this year, and having played through the "last turn objective grab with fast skimmers, etc" phase of the game, I would disagree that random game length removes or limits strategy in the game.

What it does is makes that objective grab around turn 5 into a calculated risk, with the chance the game continues, leaving your troops exposed. I agree its another variable in what is a game of random variables now, but it prevents building a strategy or a list around knowing exactly when the game will end, and "gaming" that element.

And if removing random game length were to happen, do you play 5 turns for the sake of time and rounds in a tournament? Six? Seven, to allow reserves to really deploy and have an impact? All of those decision also serve to change the way the game plays: earlier favors rapid strike, and longer favors durability.

In the article I said 6 turns.

My personal opinion is no as it gives too much power to people going second. all they need to do is turtle then jump out of last second point grabs with no fear.

I would agree that you just change which die is the game-breaker. In this case (fixed game length), going first or second now becomes much more important.

Desubot wrote:My personal opinion is no as it gives too much power to people going second. all they need to do is turtle then jump out of last second point grabs with no fear.

pretre wrote:I would agree that you just change which die is the game-breaker. In this case (fixed game length), going first or second now becomes much more important.

Going second is already a major advantage in objective missions with Random Game Length. Anytime you get the last chance to act you'll be at an advantage. With out Random Game Length the player going first has the chance to effectively plan for his opponents last turn moves because he/she will know exactly when that last turn will be.

Right, but with RGL, going second has a cost if you decide to all jump out of your vehicles. i.e. the game continues and you get blasted off the board.

With FGL, there is no cost. You guard your dudes until turn 6 and then jump out. The other player has no recourse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think due to time limits a lot of games end up effectively having FGL. i.e. 2 hours to play, it is 1 hour 45 right now and you're at the top of 5. Guess which turn the game is ending on?

 pretre wrote:
Right, but with RGL, going second has a cost if you decide to all jump out of your vehicles. i.e. the game continues and you get blasted off the board.

With FGL, there is no cost. You guard your dudes until turn 6 and then jump out. The other player has no recourse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think due to time limits a lot of games end up effectively having FGL. i.e. 2 hours to play, it is 1 hour 45 right now and you're at the top of 5. Guess which turn the game is ending on?

Right. In the article I say how my best (read most enjoyable/least sour grapes) games are the ones that are forced to end bottom of 4 or 5 due to time constraints. That is because both players know when the game is going to end and plan accordingly.

If time constraints leading to games having to cut short/early, then that's an issue with events not allotting enough time and needing to adapt rather than changing an important gameplay mechanic.

People will game a strict 6 turn limit just as much as they'll game RGL, they just do it in different and generally easier ways where it can be accounted for much better in the list building and deployment stages as opposed to during actual play.

If a game is actually close, it usually won't go to 6 turns in the required time limits. I've seen far too many tournament games morph into an objective grab once both players realize that there won't be enough time to start another turn.

Realistically, a lot of players "game" the system so that games aren't random length for them, if they think they can get away with it ... they will agree that Turn 5 will be the "last" if it's getting close. Removing Random Game Length simply starts to level the field for those who don't game the system.

That said, while I'm personally a fan of removing single-dice dealbreakers from a tournament setting in order to level the playing field across all tables, it's not something you're necessarily going to get a lot of purchase on ... simply due to the confrontational nature of so many internet pundits when you "change" or remove any part of the game (even if the result is an objectively more fair or subjectively more fun situation).

The thing that I think people conflate is the notion of "a general has to be ready for anything" and "fair and meaningful results."

Terrain is a good example to make things clearer here - I would argue that a good 40k player should be able to handle ANY terrain layout, presuming it fulfills design requirements. That said, I would also argue that if I am playing someone on Table 1 with terrain laid out one way, and someone else is playing on Table 2 with a TOTALLY different terrain layout, the two tables are NOT playing the same mission, at all.

40k is a lot like Golf in the sense that the game follows a set of rules, but they are applied to and heavily impacted by the terrain upon which you play. You would never judge two golfers as being within the same event if one was playing St. Andrews while the other played Pebble Beach, EVEN THOUGH the true test of their skill should see them succeed relative to the field at EITHER location.

The same is true effectively if you have a situation where on one table, the game goes to turn 5, and on another it goes to turn 6. Both games are now DIFFERENT missions. So while both sets of players should tactically be able to handle any situation, you start to get into a MORE grey area in terms of the meaningfulness of your results.

In short for me, I kinda support the outlook on removing things like random game length, and stealing the initiative, EVEN THOUGH those things are variables that in any one situation or one-off game are PERFECTLY valid components of 40k, and should be handleable by a capable opponent. BUT I haven't made any activity on this for my own tournament formats, because my own personal opinion isn't the metric by which I choose to drive my formats. Broad public opinion is not all that supportive of such changes.

MVBrandt wrote:

Terrain is a good example to make things clearer here - I would argue that a good 40k player should be able to handle ANY terrain layout, presuming it fulfills design requirements. That said, I would also argue that if I am playing someone on Table 1 with terrain laid out one way, and someone else is playing on Table 2 with a TOTALLY different terrain layout, the two tables are NOT playing the same mission, at all.

This reminds me of a tournament I was at where in my game, I was facing Space Wolves that had Long Fangs on the top level of a 3-level ruined building in their deployment zone, and the table next to me was covered in gently sloping hills.

There is no game mechanic in 6th, or even in 5th, that was as unbalanced, uneven, unfair, and annoying as Random Game Length. It is a completely random game element, using a single die roll, that cannot properly be planned for. It adds no strategic, or tactical element to the game.

In my opinion your conclusion is based around a flawed premise.

--A player can and most certainly should plan for the game to end in any of turns 5, 6 or 7. This includes having redundancy in your mobility, scoring or contesting options.
--It most certainly adds a tactical and strategic element to the game. Pacing of the game, board control etc all play into how well you can handle the game ending in different turns and these are all tied to strategy and tactics.

Now, I am not opposed to a tournament having some or all games being fixed length. But as a TO you have not convinced me it needs to be removed. Just my two cents.

I'm a fan of Random Game length personally. 5th and 6th editions have been so much more enjoyable than 3rd and 4th and I think that's one of the elements that contributed to it.

I played fixed game length for hundreds of games of 3rd and 4th edition. Back then 2nd turn in a quadrant or objective game was often a near-guaranteed win in a lot of matchups. RGL requires players to adapt and conserve forces in case the game goes longer, and prevents a fast but fragile unit from being able to grab an objective with complete impunity on turn 6.

 pretre wrote:
I would agree that you just change which die is the game-breaker. In this case (fixed game length), going first or second now becomes much more important.

This. Getting rid of RGL also just makes the first turn roll much more make-or-break. RGL mitigates how critical that one roll is and spreads out the variance.

Random game length is good. Fixed game length benefits mobile armies too much and make just killing the opponent way more important than the objectives. Getting to and holding the objectives should be important, not just lurking somewhere near them until turn 6. Also, contesting is WAAYY less annoying under random game length. If you are looking for a way to make random game length less of single die roll decision, make objectives worth 1 VP on turn 5, another on turn 6, and so on.

I would argue that we're already seeing a shift in the importance of going first even in objective games, what with Night Vision becoming increasingly common (Tau and Eldar) and many builds depending on psyker blessings to get up and running (Daemons and some Eldar builds).

The primary argument that's come up against FGL (fixed game length) is that it makes the first turn roll too important and benefits more mobile armies too much but those are not really good arguments... Regardless of RGL or FGL, the second player will ALWAYS have the last turn to move and do things, this just becomes a bit more risky but it doesn't HAVE to be risky if he prepared properly.

Same with FGL, if both players KNOW game will end turn 6, they KNOW they need to be at a certain objective by turn 6 and if they fail to prepare for it, chances are they would have lost in RGL too. Considering how you can no longer tank shot 24", score from transports or even get out after tank-shocking, a lot of the things that made very mobile armies a pain in FGL have been removed. Smart positioning of units around objectives in FGL meant that fast units could not simply move to contest and so on and now pre-measuring really helps ensure you can be in the right place at the right time or helps ensure you know how far your opponent can move and what objectives he can threaten.

If a player is saying "dang I need one more turn to win or tie" usually means the game is close or they did not move/position well enough the previous turns so at least FGL will let players know how much time they have to do what they need to do to win...This will improve game play rather than make a move SOLELY reliant on a dice role as a viable tactic.

 mortetvie wrote:
Same with FGL, if both players KNOW game will end turn 6, they KNOW they need to be at a certain objective by turn 6 and if they fail to prepare for it, chances are they would have lost in RGL too. Considering how you can no longer tank shot 24", score from transports or even get out after tank-shocking, a lot of the things that made very mobile armies a pain in FGL have been removed. Smart positioning of units around objectives in FGL meant that fast units could not simply move to contest and so on and now pre-measuring really helps ensure you can be in the right place at the right time or helps ensure you know how far your opponent can move and what objectives he can threaten.

This doesn't track with my personal experiences across tournament games in 5e & 6e. So many of the close games could have ended one way on turn 5, a different way on turn 6, and occasionally even yet another way on turn 7. In close games, you often don't HAVE the units to "smartly position" around objectives anymore.

In 6e, RGL is even more important, as units inside vehicles cannot contest. Now, Mr. Necron Flyer player has to decide what turn he's going to commit to objectives & disembark, as opposed to making another go-round off the board; Mr. Wave Serpent user has to decide whether to move to the objectives on turn 4, or get another round of shooting off. These are decisions I'm happier are in the game, than if they are removed ala 3e & 4e. Part of what makes for a good game is having to make meaningful choices, and the decision to play for turn 5 or turn 6 is often very meaningful, indeed. Yes, the outcome is not specifically in your control when you make that choice...but neither is the roll-off for choice of deployment zone, or who goes first, or who you get paired against for a particular mission.

If the concern is really "rounds are too short to play out a full, 7-turn game," that's a different problem, one better addressed by either extending "normal" tournament round length, or dropping the size of events.

I didn't read your article (nothing personal, I just don't follow links to sites I don't know) but I kicked around your synopsis with one of the other TOs at my local club. Although one of us initially supported your idea, eventually we concluded that the negative impact of Random Game Length is minimal, and the removal of that rule carries a risk of greater harm to gameplay than its continued existence. Our events will continue to use it, but thank you for bringing it to our attention though.

Honestly though, I've never seen the Random Game Length rule affect the outcome of a tournament game. Ever. I think time limits at tournaments probably decide more games than Random Game Length does, but that's just an opinion, of course. Still, every tournament game I've ever seen was either decided long before Random Game Length came up, or ran out the clock.

I'm sure you've had some poor experiences with the rule, but I'm not so sure that they are typical. I think that claiming the rule reduces the game to a single die roll is a bit of an oversimplification. I'm sure there are games where the random length had a huge effect, but there had to be a large number of factors leading up to a situation where that single roll could be so influential. My personal opinion on it is that the fact that the random game length will be the last factor to affect those games makes it seem like the only factor that decided the outcome, which is a misperception.

In any event, I wish you luck in persuading TOs to accept your modification to the rules, especially in the areas you frequently play.

40k tournament play has always highlighted a player's skills in list construction and deployment, so it's not like that isn't something we're all well aware of going in to a competitive environment.

Does RGL throw a wrench into the last-turn mad dash to the objective, and occasionally net a sub-optimal result from a competitive point of view? Definitely.

Does FGL put extra emphasis on the points above about listbuilding and deployment skill? Sure.

Second turn gives you the edge in positioning, while first turn gives you the first opportunity to strike and gives you an edge in things like KPs and First Blood. For me, the difference is that all of the components of the roll for first turn and subsequent table side selection can be quantified. I can make good decisions as a player, informed by the terrain, my army, my opponent's army, the mission, etc. The potential for RGL forces players into bad decisions to deal with the risk of the game ending, like having one guardsman hop out of a transport in front of a swarm of Bloodletters, just to camp or deny an objective, just in case. Did that player make good decisions or play well to get to that point where his only shot at not getting crushed was that last chump with a lasrifle and some crossed fingers? Maybe, but probably not.

OW and I have talked about this a few times over the past year; Maybe it's a great change that will invigorate the format. Or maybe it's too much of change for the community to really handle, for good or ill. I will try it in some of my local events and see how it goes, get some feedback. All the bellyaching from me or anyone else isn't going to mean much until we can look at some IRL results.

 disdainful wrote:
The potential for RGL forces players into bad decisions to deal with the risk of the game ending, like having one guardsman hop out of a transport in front of a swarm of Bloodletters, just to camp or deny an objective, just in case. Did that player make good decisions or play well to get to that point where his only shot at not getting crushed was that last chump with a lasrifle and some crossed fingers? Maybe, but probably not.

Why's it always this sort of example that's used? The "last gasp, I hope the game ends on turn 5" sort of example? Again, that doesn't track with my personal experiences, which tend much more heavily towards the "one player is in position to win turn 5, because the other player chose to play for turn 6." Frankly, in a game so lop-sided that you can identify a player who is about to be crushed, if the dominating player loses at all, it's not RGL that's to blame.

Minor tangent: it's true that 6e cures the last-second tank grab (though not the last-second tank shock). But that's not really an improvement, in an edition that has introduced flying monstrous creatures (24" + 2d6" worth of movement), given jetbikes 48" worth of range, and continues to add more "fast" infantry units (Riptides, Warp Spiders, Slaaneshi Daemons all come to mind).

I greatly prefer random game length. In fact, I think my opinion is almost the opposite of yours, OverwatchCNC-- I consider games that end with time being called early to be fundamentally bad for the event and seriously less fun.

The fact that this happens so often is the main reason that I don't attend more tournaments. Were I running a major tournament, there would be both expanded game time (2.5 hours for 1.5k would IMO be optimal) and harsh penalties for multiple incomplete games.

 Janthkin wrote:
This doesn't track with my personal experiences across tournament games in 5e & 6e. So many of the close games could have ended one way on turn 5, a different way on turn 6, and occasionally even yet another way on turn 7. In close games, you often don't HAVE the units to "smartly position" around objectives anymore.

This happens to me all the time. Win turn 5, tie turn 6, loss turn 7. Or Loss, Tie, Win or all sorts of things. Close games are like that.

 disdainful wrote:
The potential for RGL forces players into bad decisions to deal with the risk of the game ending, like having one guardsman hop out of a transport in front of a swarm of Bloodletters, just to camp or deny an objective, just in case. Did that player make good decisions or play well to get to that point where his only shot at not getting crushed was that last chump with a lasrifle and some crossed fingers? Maybe, but probably not.

From my perspective this is actually an argument for the exact opposite position. FGL means there is never any risk or penalty for jumping that one Guardsman out of the transport on the bottom of turn 6 in the face of the onrushing horde of Bloodletters. His safety is guaranteed. In RGL, the player needs to position to hold or contest objectives starting on turn 5, and if that one Guardsman makes his play on turn 5, there's a 2/3 chance that the game goes on and the Bloodletters get to eat his face. RGL makes the game end feel a little less artificial, because until we reach turn 7 or time, there is never a guaranteed safe final move to contest on the bottom of the turn, to which I know for sure that my opponent cannot respond. If/when I make that play on turn 5 or 6, my opponent has a chance for the game to continue and to punish me for it; which means I had best have a backup plan.

A TO who wants everybody to play the 'same' random game length could very easily roll it up for everybody, revealing it say, 2/3s of the way though the time allocated for the round

(some possibility of players slow playing to 'game' this, but if the TO is keeping proper watch for slow play anyway it should not be a major issue)

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Right. In the article I say how my best (read most enjoyable/least sour grapes) games are the ones that are forced to end bottom of 4 or 5 due to time constraints. That is because both players know when the game is going to end and plan accordingly.

That is the exact opposite of my experience.

The absolute WORST games are ones where the game ends prematurely and both sides know that it is coming so the final turns are basically devoid of the actual strategies that should be going on to win or lose the game.

The fact is, 40K is designed with some armies that excel in winning the game in the last few turns. When that gets robbed from them due to not having enough time to finish the game to its natural conclusion in a tournament, that leaves a heavy feeling of resentment in those players who know that if they had enough time to actually finish their game to its natural conclusion that they likely would have won.

I feel angry and frustrated being that person when I lose that way and I feel ashamed and guilty when I win that way.


Random game length does not determine whether a game is won or lost on a single die roll. Both players make choices during their turns planning to put themselves in a position to win on turn 5, turn 6 and turn 7 (should they happen). They players who WIN are players who can play the game to put themselves in the best chance to win on all those turns.

Getting rid of random game length (or playing in a tournament game where you know you're only going to play to turn X) REMOVES strategy from the game. It allows certain units in the game to simply sit behind a piece of terrain and just plan to shoot them out in the last turn to deny an objective. Is that a strategy? Yeah, it is, but its a strategy that promotes unfun lopsided situations.

If you've got a slower army that relies on pounding the enemy to dust over the course of the game (IG, Tau) and you're facing an army that's got flying MCs or something like that, if the flying army is going 2nd they can simply hide behind terrain waiting for the last turn to shoot out and contest your objectives without fear of reprisal. So basically all that's done is forced the slow-shooty player into a position where he has to charge headlong into the enemy (completely against his strength) to have ANY chance of denying this tactic.

Random Game Length is a huge positive in my book.

Very few tournament games seem to go beyond 5 games anyway in an 1850 / 2.5 hour format in 6th edition, so the point is kind of moot for most events. It's usually only games that are already decided (i.e., blow-outs) or those where two small, elite armies are facing off that have the opportunity to even play a 6th or 7th turn.

The removal of random game length could address the inequitable situation of some armies being much less likely to ever end a game naturally (e.g., hordes). Removing random game length might help even out the experience for a some players, but would probably meet rabid resistance from people who fail to understand the reason for doing it in the first place. In the end, there would probably be a lot of moaning and little actual benefit.

I would agree with Yakface, and not just for Random Turn Lengths.

A lot of random elements (not all, but many) in 6th Edition promote competitiveness, rather than subtract from it.

Take random psychic powers for example.

There is no skill involved in known JoTWW rocks in 5th Edition, and loading up on it in your army. Being able to work with variety of possible powers you may end up with, and having plans/tactics/strategems in mind to make the most of any of them, is a far greater challenge of skill.

Random tables like this are only an opposite to "skill" or "competitiveness", if you conceive the latter as exclusively one-dimensional things, of "strategy" as an exclusively sequential construct. 6th Edition punishes this one-dimensional approach to tactics, not least because it is the easiest to "fake" via net-lists, and rewards players able to think laterally and anticipate multiple potential scenarios.

That is probably the greatest boon for a "competitive" approach for 40K in the last 20 years.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Take random psychic powers for example.

Bad example.

There is no skill involved in known JoTWW rocks in 5th Edition, and loading up on it in your army.

Or rocket launchers either. Maybe we should roll on random tables to find out what heavy and special weapons our troops were assigned too.

Being able to work with variety of possible powers you may end up with, and having plans/tactics/strategems in mind to make the most of any of them, is a far greater challenge of skill.

There's no great challenge of skill involved in realizing that Iron Arm is worth five times as much to its owner than any one-shot witchfire power. The fact that they cost the same amount is a disgrace to the idea that armies can be equal if their point costs are the same. If you think it's such a great test of skill, I'd gladly play a game where we each have the same daemon army, but all my MCs get Iron Arm and Warp Speed, and all yours get smite and life leech.